Towards building consensus: Revisiting key principles of
CBPR within the First Nations/Aboriginal context
Pammla Petrucka1, Sandra Bassendowski1, Deanna Bickford1, Elder Velma Goodfeather2
1
College of Nursing (Regina Site), University of Saskatchewan, Regina, Canada 2Standing Buffalo First Nation, Saskatchewan, Canada
Email: [email protected]
Received 26 March 2012; revised 28 April 2012; accepted 3 May 2012
ABSTRACT
Community based participatory research as a pre-ferred approach to research with First Nations and Aboriginal communities has contributed to new ter-minologies, new methodologies, and new directions in research relationships. One of the ongoing challenges is to articulate and operationalize the principles for CBPR with these communities. This paper reflects on the nine principles articulated by LaVeaux and Christopher in the context of a long term commu-nity-academic research partnership at Standing Buf-falo First Nations, Saskatchewan, Canada. Within this application, we begin to critique the various prin- ciples and to reframe these principles to increase their utility in informing community based research in the First Nations/Aboriginal context.
Keywords: Community Based Participatory Research; First Nations; Aboriginal; Research Principles
1. INTRODUCTION
The use of community based participatory research (CBPR) methods has become increasingly recognized as appropriate when working with Indigenous (i.e., First Nations/Aboriginal) populations as it is potentially em-powering and inclusive for groups who have lacked voice [1-4]. Community-based research is collaboration between community groups and researchers for the pur-pose of creating new knowledge or understanding about a practical community issue in order to bring about change. Community-based research therefore is collabo-rative, participatory, empowering, systematic, and trans-formative. Such a model is focused on knowledge gath-ering as well as action to address pressing community issues [5-8]. CBPR highlights the centrality of the com-munity in not only setting but operationalizing its re-search agenda. However, rere-searchers selecting this meth-odological approach must be intimately aware of the context and concerns related to conducting research with
First Nations/Aboriginal peoples. These researchers are challenged by emerging trends, policies, and preferred futures of these communities to exercise increased con-trol [9], self-determination [10], ethics frameworks [5], and equitable involvement [11] in all phases of the re-search process.
This paper will consider 9 principles outlined by LaVeaux and Christopher [12] for conducting CBPR with First Nations/Aboriginal communities. Following a brief review of these principles, a description of the con-text of a long-term research relationship with Standing Buffalo First Nation in Saskatchewan Canada will be provided. From this reflective process, a re-consideration of these nine principles will be posited with emphasis on their utility and potential modifications to better inform CBPR teams working within First Nations/Aboriginal contexts.
2. THE PRINCIPLES: AN OVERVIEW
LaVeaux and Christopher [12] considered the work of Israel et al. [2] which articulated eight key principles for conducting research using CBPR approaches. Although these latter authors recognized the applicability and im-portance of this work in the context of research with First Nations/Aboriginal people, through the work of LaVeaux and Christopher [12] nine additional principles specific to these groups were identified. Briefly these are de-scribed herein:
2.1. Acknowledge Historical Experience with Research and Work to Overcome the Negative Image of Research
balanced, trustworthy, and ethical manner.
2.2. Recognize Tribal Sovereignty
This principle recognizes existence, importance and pre- eminence of tribal governance models and jurisdictions within the research relationships [15-17]. Tribes have been the subjects of paternalistic institutional research practices for many years, with such approaches being displaced by efforts of self-determination [5,9,18].
2.3. Differentiate between Tribal and Community Membership
Israel et al. [2] stressed the CBPR principle of seeing the community as the unit of identity, which is expanded to variable definitions of community by LaVeaux and Christopher [12]. These latter authors emphasize that, although similar experiences, values, and histories of colonization, residential schools, traditions, and tribal linkages bind First Nations/Aboriginal peoples together [19,20], these relationships are further complicated by membership requirements and self-identification [21-24]. Hence researchers must work collaboratively towards respecting and aligning within these definitions and pa-rameters to truly reflect the community unit.
2.4. Understand Tribal Diversity and Its Implications
First Nations and Aboriginal people are not a homoge-neous group [17,25,26], hence researchers must under-take to pay attention to and embrace these elements of difference [27,28]. The key implication for researchers is that there is variability within and across groups so ef-forts must be made to be aware and inclusive, which can only be achieved through purposive and immersive ef-forts [23].
2.5. Plan for Extended Timelines
There is an imperative for researchers to invest time building relationships and trust throughout the course of the research. This goes beyond the iterative process de-scribed by Israel et al and extends to intensive and pro-longed engagement with the community [18,29]. All of these are impacted by community event/ceremonies, people, and prior experiences with researchers; hence time commitment and engagement is the litmus test of a researcher’s sincerity and integrity [13,28,30].
2.6. Recognize Key Gatekeepers
The research must know and work closely with key indi-viduals such as Elders and community leaders (formal and informal) [17,31] for a number of reasons. These
gatekeepers or knowledge holders are critical launchers and linkers at all stages of the project as well as for maintaining the research momentum at times of leader-ship transitions [12,14,18]. So the critical message within this principle is the need for acknowledgement and em-bedded-ness of co-learning and mutual regard with these key stakeholders and knowledge holders throughout the research [30,32].
2.7. Prepare for Leadership Turnover
In order to address the various processes and conditions for the changes in leadership and to limit disruption to research projects, there is an increased presence and recommendation for formal research partnership docu-ments [5,13,18]. Such docudocu-ments are not binding, but do articulate intentions, roles, and commitments, thereby contributing to continuity.
2.8. Interpret Data within the Cultural Context
It is critical that community members are included in this phase of the research process in order to embed cultural belief systems, and ways of knowing as well as to strengthen capacity of the community in terms of future research [5,33]. Through inclusivity in data interpretation, dissemination of information will be guided, reflexivity of the community’s voice will be entrenched, and find-ings will be available in community accessible formats [5,34].
2.9. Utilize Indigenous Ways of Knowing
This principle focuses on the unique beliefs and values which, when incorporated into CBPR research projects, will enrich and more correctly reflects Indigenous know- ledges and understandings [35-38]. A key strategy to-wards achievement of this principle lies in the use of Indigenous methodologies [12] in research projects which are more apt to be engaging and empowering for the communities.
3. THE PROJECT: STANDING BUFFALO
FIRST NATION CBPR EXEMPLAR
members of SBFN. This topic holds significance and relevance to community members, specifically, and First Nations/Aboriginal peoples, generally, as it challenges current linear approaches and seeks to build knowledge from a First Nations/Aboriginal lens.
Although the lead project was a photovoice initiative with youth, the entire community has been engaged in the research and supporting their “Photovoice Kids”. Through open community meetings, celebratory feasts, briefings, and face to face meetings, it has been possible to build consensus on the scope of involvements, to guide research activities, and to identify opportunities for knowledge translation and dissemination. A research team of community (i.e., Elders, residents), local authori-ties (i.e., Chief, Band Councillors), professional (i.e., education and health care staff), and academic members have jointly addressed all aspects of the research. This inclusive and intentional approach, which was estab-lished early in the process, and has been revisited at stra-tegic points (i.e., after the pilot study, after the photo-voice phase, etc.) has been foundational to the success and sustainability of the CBPR experience at SBFN. Most significantly, we learned that advice and guidance of the Elders are critical to development of the partner-ships and research process and, ultimately, to sustainabil-ity of the effort.
From the logistic lens, two key learnings occurred. The first was that working in a community-based part-nership takes additional time and resources which must be planned for in timelines and organization of the re-search. The additional time was essential for learning, trust, and respect as well as building the team. A second key learning was that the use of CBPR approach was appropriate and facilitative allowing the strengths of each member of the research team to be fully utilized and for capacity building opportunities to be identified and ad-dressed.
Together, members of the team moved positively to support each other, the participants, and the community in improving the understanding of Pathways to Living Well. Through this process, three key promising practices arose. First, there is an imperative to commit to a long-standing relationship and engagement with the commu-nity. Standing Buffalo First Nation has privileged the academic team with open dialogue and a level of trust that can only be gained through a presence and commit-ment from all team members. As we have recently em-barked on a new research stream, the re-negotiation and re-affirmation of the commitment was found to be straightforward and seamless. Second, the process must be inclusive, transparent, active, and community specific. The team has recognized the need to engage a wide range of community members, decision makers, partici-pants, professionals, staff, and academics in “active
processes and interactive engagement and exchange” [42]. We note that this was a key enabler for the team to be open and responsive to every opportunity brought forward and allowed us to maximize for innovation and change. Third, flexibility and responsiveness in a com-munity based partnership is essential to innovation and collaboration. In this program the suggestions and poten-tial directions are shared openly resulting in significant changes from the original research plan in order to be community relevant.
An evolving learning—one which we as a team are still struggling to fully understand—is the need for strategies for traditional knowledge translation, shared decision making, and research utilization. Throughout the course of this research the team recognized that em-bedding knowledge translation activities appropriate to diverse and non-academic audiences is critical. Kitson [43] states that “… successful translation of new knowl-edge into any system is a function of the level of local autonomy experienced by individuals, teams and the [community] involved in the change”. This imperative requires continuous reflection and emphasis on the im-portance of linking past to present to future, traditional to Western, and knowing to showing. Throughout, the strengths of the community partners in highlighting cul-tural and social aspects were evident; while other team members contributed by querying cultural meanings and seeking clarification of appropriate knowledge transla-tion aspects. There was significant respect for the knowledge shared and all final products reflected this mutual regard and honoring of traditional ways of knowing.
4. THE POSSIBILITIES: A REFLECTION
ON THE PRINCIPLES IN PRACTICE
the refining of these principles into a working model. Our team recognized the first four principles as the foundational work of the incoming researcher/research team—essentially doing the “homework” necessary be-fore entering into the community. Although inclusion of the community is implicit, it would be meritous to seek examples and promising practices on how this is made explicit and practical. Further, we envisioned the first four principles as being about “Knowing the Community: Its people and its context” and recommend collapsing these under this heading as a single guiding principle. With minor wordsmithing, these principles reflect sound research skills necessary when working with any vul-nerable, at-risk or potentially marginalized population. In our program of research, it has been important to “Know our Community” on a number of different levels and we have taken measures such as a study tour to the Smith-sonian Institute, language embedded-ness through the Elders, and consistent liaising and clarifying to build understanding of the context. Our response to these prin-ciples would be to reconsider their independent listing and embrace them as a foundational principle as “Know-ing the Community”.
In terms of principle #5, we acknowledge the need to consider timelines, but consider this to be an organiza-tional (logistical) issue rather than a principle. In our work, time is seen as a resource which is to be wisely used by all team members. Although it is critical to be aware of the issues and possible challenges to time, this is not unique to First Nations/Aboriginal contexts, but exists across most CBPR involvements. Hence, our rec-ommendation would be to include this in advisories on planning and conducting research with communities rather than as a principle or rule.
Our team considered principles #6 and 7 as highly in-ter-related. Together, for us, they represented the contin-uum from entrée to exit (inclusive of sustainability). In our research program, we have found that inclusiveness, early and continuous involvement, and openness have enabled us in “Becoming and Remaining Relevant”. It would be our suggestion that the original authors con-sider the possibility of uniting these two principles and under this proposed umbrella principle, provide guidance to explore opportunities for continuous engagement, em- beddedness, and appropriate exit/transition/sustainability strategies.
In terms of the final two principles our team was both appreciative and supportive of their inclusion and inten-tion. In our work we found that these were iterative and co-learned aspects of the research which made the efforts dynamic and sustainable. These principles further ground the research team in considering the importance of con-tinually seeking ways to validate or approach the re-search in an innovative, culturally informed manner.
From our perspective it would be more meaningful to move the final principle—utilizing Indigenous ways of knowing—to the top of the list as it honours and clearly focuses the research within Indigenous ways of knowing.
5. ONE WAY FORWARD
In seeking opportunities to enhance and advance CBPR within First Nations/Aboriginal contexts it is important to recognize and strive for excellence. The work of LaVeaux and Christopher is an important step in evolv-ing the principles of CBPR to achieve this end. Our team agreed unequivocally with the comment that “it is nec-essary to go beyond the CBPR recommendations” [12]. However, in reflection on the nine principles advanced by these authors, in the context of our long-term research involvement with a First Nations community, our re-search team was able to variably accept, adapt, and reject. Our interpretations and recommendations are solely brought for discussion debate to enrich the understanding of CBPR with this unique population and continue to be “bridge-builders for future research among [First Na-tions/Aboriginal] communities” [12].
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Re-search—Institute of Aboriginal Peoples Health.
REFERENCES
[1] Etowa, J., Thomas Bernard, W., Oyinsan, B. and Clow, B. (2007) Participatory action research: An approach for improving Black women’s health in rural and remote communities. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 18, 349- 357. doi:10.1177/1043659607305195
[2] Israel, B., Schulz, A., Parker, E. and Becker, A. (1998) Review of community-based research: Assessing part-nership approaches to improve public health. Annual Re-view of Public Health, 19, 173-202.
doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173
[3] Minkler, M. and Wallerstein, N. (2008) Community based participatory research for health: Process to out-comes. 2nd Edition, Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
[4] Westfall, J., VanVorst, R.F., Main, D.S. and Hebert, C. (2006) Community-based participatory research in prac-tice-based research networks. Annals of Family Medicine, 4, 8-14. doi:10.1370/afm.511
[5] Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (TCPS) (2010) Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans.
http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca
par-ticipatory Indigenous research. Social Science and Medi-cine, 66, 1393-1405.
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.030
[7] Labonte, R. (2004) Community, community development, and the forming of authentic partnerships: Some critical reflections. In: Minkler, M. Ed., Community Organizing and Community Building for Health, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.
[8] Moffitt, P. and Robinson-Vollman, A. (2004) Photovoice: Picturing the health of aboriginal women in a remote northern community. Canadian Journal of Nursing Re-search, 36, 189-201.
[9] Schnarch, B. (2004) Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to re-search: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some options for First Nations communities.
Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1, 80-97.
[10] First Nations Centre (2007) OCAP: Ownership, control, access and possession. Sanctioned by the First Nations Information Governance Committee, Assembly of First Nations. National Aboriginal Health Organization, Ot-tawa.
[11] Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (2008) Research involving Aboriginal peoples.
http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/index
[12] LaVeaux, D. and Christopher, S. (2009) Contextualizing CBPR: Key Principles of CBPR meet the Indigenous re-search context. Pimatisiwin, 7, 1-5.
[13] Christopher S. (2005) Recommendations for conducting successful research with Native Americans. Journal of Cancer Education, 20, 47-51.
doi:10.1207/s15430154jce2001s_11
[14] Letiecq, B.L. and Bailey, S.J. (2004) Evaluating from the outside: Conducting cross-cultural evaluation research on an American Indian reservation. Evaluation Review, 28, 342-357. doi:10.1177/0193841X04265185
[15] Strickland, C.J. (2006) Challenges in community-based participatory research implementation: Experiences in cancer prevention with Pacific Northwest American In-dian Tribes. Cancer Control: Journal of the Moffitt Can-cer Center, 13, 230-236
[16] Chino, M. and DeBruyn, L. (2006) Building true capacity: Indigenous models for Indigenous communities. Ameri-can Journal of Public Health, 96, 596-599.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.053801
[17] Martin-Hill, D. and Soucy, D. (2005) Ganono’se’n e yo’gwilode’—Ethical Guidelines for Aboriginal Research Elders and Healers Roundtable. Commissioned by the Aboriginal Ethics Policy Development Project and sup-ported by the Ethics Office of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Government of Canada, Ottawa.
[18] Burhansstipanov, L., Christopher, S. and Schumacher, A. (2005) Lessons learned from community-based partici-patory research in Indian country. Cancer, Culture and Literacy, 70-76.
[19] Belcourt-Dittloff, A. and Stewart, J. (2000) Historical racism: Implications for Native Americans. American
Psychologist, 1166-1167.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.10.1166
[20] Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRCC) (2012) Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Interim report. TRCC, Winnipeg.
[21] Norton, I.M. and Manson, S.M. (1996) Research in American Indian and Alaska Native communities: Navi-gating the cultural universe of values and process. Jour-nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 856-860. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.64.5.856
[22] Statistics Canada (2011) 2006 Census: Aboriginal Peo-ples in Canada in 2006: Inuit, Métis and First Nations, 2006 Census: Definitions and notes.
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/ 97-558/note-eng.cfm
[23] Wax, M.L. (1991) The ethics of research in American Indian communities. American Indian Quarterly, 15, 431- 456. doi:10.2307/1185363
[24] Wallerstein, N.B. and Duran, B. (2006) Using commu-nity-based participatory research to address health dis-parities. Health Promotion Practice, 7, 312-323. doi:10.1177/1524839906289376
[25] Voyageur, C.J. and Calliou, B. (2000) Various shades of red: Diversity within Canada’s Indigenous community
London Journal of Canadian Studies, 16, 109-124.
[26] Health Canada (2009) Our voices: First Nations, Métis, and Inuit gender based analysis toolkit. British Columbia Centre for Excellence on Women’s Health, Vancouver.
[27] Christopher, S., Knows His Gun McCormick, A., Smith, A. and Christopher, J.C. (2005) Development of an inter-viewer training manual for a cervix health project on the Apsaalooke reservation. Health Promotion Practice, 6, 414-422. doi:10.1177/1524839904268521
[28] Crazy Bull, C. (1997) A Native conversation about re-search and scholarship. Tribal College: Journal of Ameri- can Indian Higher Education, 8, 17-23.
[29] Christopher, S., Smith, A. and Knows His Gun McCor-mick, A. (2005) Participatory development of a cervical health brochure for Apsaalooke women. Journal of Can-cer Education, 20, 173-176.
doi:10.1207/s15430154jce2003_12
[30] Beardi, G. and Donnelly, S. (1999) Rural participatory research in Alaska: The case of Tanakon Village. Journal of Rural Studies, 15, 171-178.
doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(98)00053-9
[31] Ellerby, J.H. (2001) Working with Aboriginal elders: An introductory handbook for institution-based and health care professionals based on the teachings of Aboriginal elders and cultural teachers. Native Studies Press, Uni-versity of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
[32] Strickland, C.J. (2006) Challenges in community-based participatory research implementation: Experiences in cancer prevention with Pacific Northwest American In-dian Tribes. Cancer Control: Journal of the Moffitt Can-cer Center, 13, 230-236.
Indians. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 17, 131-139.
[34] Smith, A., Christopher, S. and Knows His Gun McCor-mick, A. (2004) Development and implementation of a culturally sensitive cervical health survey: A community- based participatory approach. Women & Health, 40, 67-86. doi:10.1300/J013v40n02_05
[35] Archibald, J. (2001) Sharing Aboriginal knowledge and Aboriginal ways of knowing. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25, 1-18.
[36] Battiste, M., Bell, L. and Findlay, L.M. (2002) Decolo-nizing education in Canadian universities: An interdisci-plinary, international, indigenous research project. Cana-dian Journal of Native Education, 26, 82-95.
[37] Bruyere, G. Traditional knowledge. University of the Artic: Contemporary issues in the Circumpolar World 2. http://www.uartic.org/bcs/BCS332/module_4.pdf
[38] Crowshoe, C. (2005) Sacred ways of life: Traditional knowledge. Prepared for First Nations Centre National Aboriginal Health Organization.
http://www.naho.ca/firstnations/english/documents/FNC-TraditionalKnowledgeToolkit-Eng.pdf
[39] Bassendowski, S., Petrucka, P., Smadu, M., Redman, R.
and Bourassa, C. (2006) Relationship building for re-search: The South Saskatchewan urban aboriginal health coalition. Contemporary Nurse, 22, 267-277.
doi:10.5172/conu.2006.22.2.267
[40] Petrucka, P., Bassendowski, S. and Bourassa, C. (2007) Seeking paths to culturally competent health care: Learn-ing from two Saskatchewan Aboriginal communities. Ca-nadian Journal of Nursing Research, 39, 166-182.
[41] Racine, L. and Petrucka, P. (2011) Enhancing decoloni-zation and knowledge transfer in nursing research with non-Western populations: Examining the congruence be-tween primary health care and postcolonial feminist ap-proaches. Nursing Inquiry, 18, 12-20.
doi:10.1111/j.1440-1800.2010.00504.x
[42] Lavis, J.N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J.M., McLeod, C.B. and Abelson, J. (2003) How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Quarterly, 81, 221-248.
doi:10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052
